Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak again today about the Deh Cho Bridge project. In May, Members passed a motion in this House to come clean on what the costs and benefits would be for the proposed Deh Cho Bridge. Mr. Speaker, we had a briefing in July behind closed doors and as protocol would dictate, I can’t publicly discuss what things I learned at this meeting. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, there was nothing new. The public still doesn’t know what the impact is going to be and all we know is that the Deh Cho Bridge project is going ahead. The Premier and government have been quite clear about that since May. Mr. Speaker, I am having a tremendous amount of difficulty understanding how this project has gotten to the stage it is at.

The Premier is planning a groundbreaking ceremony this Friday, the day after the last session of this government is concluded. To my knowledge, Regular Members haven’t even been invited to the party, Mr. Speaker. What is so hard to believe is why the government is relying solely on a five-year-old piece of legislation passed by the last government to build the Deh Cho Bridge. Nowhere in the Deh Cho Bridge Act does it say build the bridge at any price. That act was conceived and vetted publicly when the project was 60 to 70 million dollars and tolls would be under $5 per tonne. At the time, a thorough cost-benefit analysis was done on the cost of the project. Mr. Speaker, that was five years ago. My motion in May and my standing here again today is to ask the government where is the 2007 cost-benefit analysis? The government has yet to prove to me that a bridge built for $150 million with tolls, when completed, of over $7 a tonne would not have a negative impact on the cost to consumers in the North Slave region and the city of Yellowknife. At no time in the last four years have the Members of this House had any discussion on completing large infrastructure projects.

In his sessional statement, the Premier says the additional $2 million the government required to put into the project would not come out of education, housing or health care. How is it possible for the Premier to say this? Just because we have a better formula financing arrangement with Ottawa does not mean the Members of this House said it’s okay to spend an additional $2 million a year on a bridge. That money could be used in education, health care or housing. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Speaker: MR. SPEAKER

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to conclude his statement. Are there any nays? There are no nays. You may conclude your statement, Mr. Ramsay.

David Ramsay

Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That money could be used in education, health care or housing. It’s just that now future governments will have no say in the matter, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a shame. Mr. Speaker, once again I will state for the record that I do support a bridge being built across the Mackenzie River but not without substantial funding from Ottawa and not without the proof from this government that costs will not increase in the city of Yellowknife or in the North Slave region. I just cannot believe the government is moving ahead with this project when it’s faced with so many questions that remain unanswered. There has been no transparency from the government on this project, Mr. Speaker, and that is the sad truth. Mahsi.

---Applause